|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Sept 21, 2009 20:34:37 GMT -5
With Neill gone, an election is held on February 11th between Travis and Bowie as to who would command the garrison. While few may have approached Crockett, Bowie wins and responds with a drunken celebration, releasing prisoners and detaining citizens who decide to leave upon news of Santa Anna's march towards Bexar. Travis tries to take control, but to no avail and according to Three Roads and Hero of the Common man, Travis leaves with his regulars and a volunteer company to the southwest to camp on the Medina River. What supports that Travis did indeed leave for a short time? His letter to Henry Smith of February 13th?
Upon first reading, I take that as more of an empty threat...much like Travis's earlier objection to his new post. So, what supports he actually took his men to the Medina River?
Also, I read that Bowie regained his senses the next day on the 14th, fetched Travis, and settled on joint command. Travis of the regulars and the one volunteer company, and Bowie with the rest of the volunteers. And I've also read that Neill turned back upon hearing of the dispute and ultimately ended the quarrel; turning right back around to tend to his family. Which is more plausible? Bowie's intervention? Or Neill's return to end the dispute?
Unless Neill was somehow notified on his way to Mina, I don't see how it is likely.
Thoughts?
All the best,
Wade
|
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Oct 21, 2009 15:55:01 GMT -5
Wade,
This is a good question, to which I haven't the answer! I am surprised nobody else has made a comment or left some reply before now. Anybody have an answer on this one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 21, 2009 19:05:41 GMT -5
Wade:
Travis and Baugh both wrote letters to Smith on the 13th, and both indicated that Travis called for the election which resulted in Bowie serving as commander of the volunteers.
Baugh's letter also confirms that Travis left for the Medina hoping to remove himself from Bowie's drunken rampage after the election.
"...as a friend to good order, and anxious to escape the stigma which must inevitably follow, has, as a last resort, drawn off his troops to the Medina, where he believes he may be as useful as in the garrison, at all events, save himself from implication in this disgraceful business..."
Travis, however, also wrote Smith on the 14th, 15th, and 16th, so he doesn't seem to have been at the Medina very long. Maybe he returned as soon as Bowie sobered up, which seems to have been fairly quickly after the drunken escapade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 21, 2009 19:21:44 GMT -5
Does anyone buy Jeff Long's contention that Bowie's drunken spree led to his illness, or at least contributed to it? Long seems to have donned his stethoscope at that point and diagnosed Bowie with a depleted immune system that led to his illness.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 21, 2009 20:56:58 GMT -5
I'm afraid I don't buy Jeff Long's ANYTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Oct 22, 2009 20:22:25 GMT -5
How plausible is it that Travis thought too highly of himself and his leadership qualities, or that it was seen that way by Bowie? In order to demonstrate this fact to Travis and maybe even rub his nose it it Bowie went on his drunken celebration after besting Travis in the election. After making his point and putting Travis in his place, suggested the joint command scenario.
Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, WI
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 23, 2009 1:05:15 GMT -5
I'll buy that one up to a point. Travis clearly went off to the Medina in an almighty huff, but remember this is February and camping out there can't have been too comfortable for him or for for his men, after the relative comfort of Bexar. I'd say he returned with his tail between his legs suggesting the joint command to save his face and that the lack of a real partnership is seen in the apparent wrangling the day the Mexicans arrived, with Travis yelling defiance and Bowie trying to patch up some kind of deal to get everybody out alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 23, 2009 5:27:10 GMT -5
I'll buy that one up to a point. Travis clearly went off to the Medina in an almighty huff, but remember this is February and camping out there can't have been too comfortable for him or for for his men, after the relative comfort of Bexar. I'd say he returned with his tail between his legs suggesting the joint command to save his face and that the lack of a real partnership is seen in the apparent wrangling the day the Mexicans arrived, with Travis yelling defiance and Bowie trying to patch up some kind of deal to get everybody out alive. I can buy this. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Oct 23, 2009 6:10:24 GMT -5
This also begs the question-where on the Medina did Travis camp? I would imagine, since he had cavalry, or at best mounted troops, he would have picked the crossing of the Camino Reale at the Medina west/south west of Bexar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Oct 23, 2009 12:53:18 GMT -5
Thanks for restoring the thread, Scott.
And thank you Jim for pointing out Baugh's letter. I read it shortly after having posted this thread. The Alamo Reader is an incredible source of information.
I've come to the conclusion that either Bowie sent for him, to reconcile, or as Stuart suggested, Travis returned with his tail between his legs. It was a very small event, lasting probably a day, according to the time between letters sent between Travis and the joint command decision.
Kevin, I believe Travis left for the Medina with his cavalry and one company of regular volunteers. I agree, he wouldn't have camped too far from town...giving the circumstances and the information hat had arrived days earlier from scouts. It seems Travis was an impulsive man who acted out if he didn't get his way. Thoughts?
I'm curious as to where Crockett was during all of this. As Crockett is the main character of my graphic novel, did he speak to Bowie regarding Travis...or, did he have less to do with Bowie than popular culture suggests? Very interesting to dig into. It could believe both possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 23, 2009 13:39:41 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that Crockett probably didn't have much to do with Bowie. One clue is that when Travis complained about Bowie releasing inmates from jail, he specifically cited D.H Barre, who had been tried by court martial and found guilty of mutiny. In a February 13th letter to Smith, Travis included a deposition from Crockett about Barre's release, obviously reinforcing Travis's complaints.
This indicates to me that Crockett, at least in this instance, sided with Travis fairly early on, and perhaps Travis solicited Crockett's advice or opinion.
Having said that, I continue to believe that Crockett was not a major player in the Alamo chain of command.
I think Crockett's primary interest in Texas was in free land and using it as a means to getting out of debt and advancing himself socially. He might have seen Texas politics as another avenue toward that end, but land was the attraction. He spent his career in Tennessee working toward that goal, never accomplished his objective, and realized that Texas was offering what he wanted.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 23, 2009 14:19:12 GMT -5
Jim,
While I agree with you that Crockett's role at the Alamo has probably been severely exaggerated in the movies and popular culture, there are some intriguing clues that he was more than just a "high private".
1. Sutherland says that he ran into Crockett in Bexar with some men covering the retreat to the Alamo ( and certainly implies that Crockett was in charge), when he and Smith returned from their scout on the 23rd. As we've discussed previously Col Minon mentions that there was a "skirmish" between his cazadores and this covering force when Minon secured Bexar.
2. Crockett was one of the men Travis mentioned in his report of the Mexican assault on the 25th, (cited in dispatches) - Seen at all points animating the men.
3. The mysterious comment by Dickinson and supported by the March 6th entry of the San Luis Potosi Journal that Crockett and two other men entered the Alamo but a couple days before the final assault - implies some mission that Travis sent him on.
While I often stated that given Crockett's age, the siege was bound to be much harder on him physically than the much younger men, it does appear that Travis was using him for a great many diverse missions.
Wade, While it's thin, I think all of this also shows that Crockett and Travis had a pretty good relationship. Bowie's one known comment about Crockett from Juana Alsbury, about entrusting her to Crockett's care, would also seem to imply that he was getting along all right with Bowie, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Oct 23, 2009 16:34:08 GMT -5
I don't meant to imply that Crockett sat on his hands, only that his role has been exaggerated. I doubt he did any more than most other defenders. Remember, in most of the actions you mention, Crockett wasn't acting alone, but we don't get the names of the other participants.
We know the tendency of later writers to put Crockett at the center of seemingly any action. I just don't buy a lot of it. I'm not even completely sold on the Alsbury comment.
Crockett was the most famous defender, and it stands to reason that everyone (probably even Travis) wanted some association with him.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 23, 2009 20:39:34 GMT -5
Of course, the information is so thin that it's hard to attempt any solid conclusions about Crockett's role. I agree that he was one of the most famous men in America at the time, and most Alamo defenders knew who he was and had probably heard stories about him, real or exaggerated. Crockett really was a "people person" and I'm sure he got on well with most of the people in the garrison and was able to keep their spirits up. No doubt Travis and Bowie knew who he was immediately and knew of his reputation as a larger-than-life national celebrity. It would only have been natural for a commander to want to find a way to use that to his advantage and make the most of having Crockett in his command.
Although it's very difficult to determine his actual role at the Alamo, Crockett was no stranger to firearms or military order. His title of Colonel of Militia was a real one, not a ceremonial one, and he had been a natural for leadership in the Creek War, where his men took to him and elected him sergeant and later lieutenant. Among people of his own background, Crockett was likely a natural leader and he sure had the gift of gab and an uncanny ability to connect with people.
I agree completely with Jim regarding Crockett's motivation for travelling to Texas and for taking the crucial step of enlisting in the Texian army. He was lured by the promise of huge quantities of fertile land, with no strings attached, merely for enlisting in the cause. He'd done no less in the Creek War, when there was no real material reward to be had. I can't explain the complex Tennessee land situation here, but Crockett had fought an uphill battle against it for years in Congress to no avail. It was just too difficult to acquire title to land where he lived without going through a convoluted process of hurdles, and it was rife with corruption. The idea that he could have thousands of acres of fertile land in Texas, at no cost and with no hassles, must have been awfully tempting to him. And a limited enlistment in the Texas cause was a small price to pay for such a prize. He also appears to have had ambitions to become a land agent in Texas, which would have been very lucrative if Texas secured independence. I think he foresaw many of his Tennessee friends and family easily being lured to Texas by the promise of cheap, fertile, hassle-free land titles. It must have seemed an irresistable chance at a new life and financial security to him, which was never going to be possible in Tennessee.
And Crockett was clearly impressed with the celebrity treatment he'd received throughout his trip to and through Texas. Wherever he went, he was greeted like a hero and celebrity. He must have seen the opportunity to revive his political fortunes in this new land among people he could easily connect with.
Crockett was courageous man and a risk taker, like many upwardly mobile Americans on the frontier who were looking for a way to elevate themselves socially and economically. He was more than willing to do the hard work required to achieve his goals and enlisting in the Texas cause would not have seemed unreasonable to him at all. He was familiar with the risks involved in frontier existence and the need to sometimes take up arms against threats.
My guess (and it can only be a guess) is that Crockett would not have flinched from any assignment Travis gave him, that the Alamo defenders would have looked up to him, and that Travis would use him as much as he could to inspire the men and provide some senior, respected leadership.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Oct 24, 2009 4:48:37 GMT -5
I think the problem here is in trying a assign a formal role to Crockett. So far as we know he didn't hold any kind of position within the garrison; all the command slots were already filled and he was probably a bit past the drudgery of active command 24/7. However he was a respected "elder statesman" who could and probably did arbitrate between Travis and Bowie and could be asked to undertake specific short term assignments, and who could "be seen at all points" encouraging the defenders generally rather than be tied to the command of a particular unit assigned to a particular post.
|
|
